This seems to indicate that if they produce the note to show they are the holder, discovery questions concerning the authenticity or chain of title or how they came to get the note are off limits.But if the court or parties have not seen the note, limited discovery concerning the authenticity of the alleged note is allowed.
Seems to limit the right to discovery . Wasn’t too hopeful after a quick read. Any thoughts?
Why isn’t anyone arguing the use of bailee agreements in opposition to these arguments regarding possession of the promissory note?
Judges will continue to believe the possession argument until someone shows up with a bailee agreement that provides a way to actually “hold” a note on behalf of another without transfer of any right to enforce. It is done all the time in the mortgage industry. The mechanics are simple.
A mortgage loan seller sends the entire collateral loan file, with the promissory note, mortgage and other other documents to prospective buyer. However, because the note is endorsed in blank, and possession is what gives the right to payment and right to enforce, the seller sends the package under an bailment agreement known as a bailee letter. This agreement allows the recipient to examine the loan documents in its capacity as bailee for the real owner. When payment for the loan is satisfied the bailee agreement automatically terminates.
What is curious is that no one seems to be arguing that these financial institutions are using these bailee instruments to push forward foreclosures or claims in bankruptcy court to feign ownership. Judges figure that if the attorney representing the bank has possession of the note, then, they must be the owner. What if possession was temporary, by bailee letter and simply a ruse to mask the identity of the real party in interest? The effect in court would be the same – if no one raises the issue.
The only way to get to bottom of this is to seek production of bailee instruments immediately. This is also true in contexts of examining the transfers of these loan documents from the original mortgagees through to the warehouse lenders, securitizing entities, document custodians, trustees and their respective attorneys.
The bankruptcy judge in this article buys the premise laid out by the bank largely because there is no counterbalancing argument to possession. Finding one or more bailee agreements, in tandem with notes endorsed in blank, might just shoot a very big hole in the possession-of-note argument.
Bottom line: someone has to look for the conveyancing instruments AND the temporary custody documents, such as the bailee agreements. Until these are secured and examined, everyone will be buying the illusion.
Not all is bad in this.
It does appear that the court has some serious reservations about blank allonges proffered in this case. It appears that if Deutsche cannot, or will not, comply with discovery they will have some serious problems.
“Deutsche Bank, however, still has not proven to either the trustee or the Court that it holds a validly endorsed promissory note evidencing its purchase of the debt on the disputed property. Therefore, Deutsche Bank cannot rely on the General Rule to avoid responding to the trustee’s discovery requests pertaining to the authenticity of the note. The trustee has raised in her complaint doubts concerning the authenticity and effectiveness of the endorsements on the allonge to the note. The copies of the note and mortgage attached as an exhibit to its response therefore are insufficient to establish Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the note.
Because the trustee has raised issues concerning the authenticity of and authority to endorse the note and allonge, the Court will overrule Deutsche Bank’s objection and compel its response to interrogatory number 5, seeking the names and addresses of ” each person whose signature appears on any endorsements on the Note or any allonge.”
HOORAY!!
Its about time someone started calling their bluff on these damn phony allonges!!
My property was in Va. Tampa Ch 13 Middle District had to review Virginia Code FIRST before issuing their order against Bank of America. Virginia Code mandates that no Allonges to Notes may be issued “in blank”. Originals are mandatory, because with a pc “anybody” can create an “original”…without evidence of chain of title who determines WHAT an Original truly is?
Seems to me, what everybody is missing is the real fraud – usury. A Note is created AFTER a person has obtained the DEED (title to the property) and that NOTE is merely a Promise to Pay – not a Bi-Lateral Contract under the UCC. Either one has to argue Common Law/UCC or Roman Civil Law/Codes. Either way – any “money loaned” based on a Persons Deed, as opposed to the Lender’s own Depositer’s funds, is “new money” created out of thin air (aka Counterfeiting/Fraud/Unconstitutional)
basically, what the court said, is what I said. If I find a $20 Federal Reserve Note on the ground, I am the Holder of the Note. It’s irrelevant how many other human or machine hands have had previous possession of that Note. What matters is the argument between “what is a Note”? A check or a draft?
See UCC3-104; A note is a negotiable instrument if it is payable “to order” or to “bearer”. This is equivalent to a check. Talked with the title company and she confirmed that we are doing an exchange. The note is given to the bank at the closing in exchange for a check for the “new money” The banks must give the proper IRS 1099A or B or use the settlement statement as a substitute. It must accompany a check per IRS as it discloses new money being issued. Ask for the IRS fiduciary tax return to see how they ledgered the account. The banks got paid as soon as they received our notes. The “new money” note is deposited into the bank and held as collateral or the deposit is transferred. If they have sold it on wall street in the form of a certificate, it has been converted. The note would have to be destroyed as it was sold for the certificate, just like we sold the note for the banks check. Now they are subject to fraud by conversion if they are trying to collect on a note while a certificate (from the trust) exists in it’s place. That would be having 2 instruments of value, they can’t both exist at the same time. That is why they can’t produce the note. The mortgage secures the note. Without the original note, the mortgage doesn’t secure anything from the original transaction, because the note is the money. But the gorilla in the room is, Where did the bank get the money to lend us? They do not have the authority to “print” money. Their bank charter prevents them from lending their depositors money as that is a liability of theirs. The banks have been playing this shell game for a long time and we are just finding out. When the bank deposits the promisory note it is put on their books as an asset (loan), but it must first go on as a liability (deposit). They balance each other. But when they go to court, they are only using the mortgage to try and take the property. The mortgage is only the lien, it is not the promise to pay. They are attempting to get the windfalls they are used to in the form of charging us 3 X the value of our homes in interest payments for 30 years. They sold the future interest payments (3x value of note and used it to fund the loan in some cases).The truth of it is we paid for our own “loans” as they only lent us their services, as it is impossible for them to lend us their “money” as they don’t have it unless they borrow from someone else. So who is that someone else? The courts know the fraud , and the bankruptcy of the United States has to be exposed to bring it all out in the open. HJR 192, June 5, 1933, Public Law 73-10. They are violating public policy in regards to the bankruptcy of the US, and all debts should be discharged dollar for dollar. We are not lent money, so we should not have to pay back money. We are accessing OUR credit. Credit is payment deferred. We can pay off the notes with another promissory note issued to ourselves and the bank, no interest and tendered to the bank. Or do a Bill of exchange, bankers acceptance. Forget the court fiasco.
This seems hopeful to me. If they can actually produce the original, blue ink note it will reveal who has actually owned the note and when these events took place.
Because, when they produce the real, true note an expert (which I think everyone should hire) will be able to look at every part of the document and will reveal, as an expert: where the paper was manufactured, when and where the ink came from, and if the signatures are genuine, plus a lot of other fun facts.
I am very, very interested in the statements of CaseClarity. I haven’t heard much about their services lately…and how their services are being received in the law field.
I don’t know law and I am very concerned about how a case can be limited, and one’s ability to bring up issues is limited, due to the lack of asking for facts/data/papers/etc. Is there a good source for learning about the phases of a foreclosure case? Does CaseClarity have something for the general public?
Seems to me,Balderrama is playing the system and trying to get away with trickery,these thoughtless acts have helped to put the economy where it is at(everyone looking out for themselve)and upon further research on this,this woman is a Banker playing the system-watch out
This seems to indicate that if they produce the note to show they are the holder, discovery questions concerning the authenticity or chain of title or how they came to get the note are off limits.But if the court or parties have not seen the note, limited discovery concerning the authenticity of the alleged note is allowed.
Seems to limit the right to discovery . Wasn’t too hopeful after a quick read. Any thoughts?
Why isn’t anyone arguing the use of bailee agreements in opposition to these arguments regarding possession of the promissory note?
Judges will continue to believe the possession argument until someone shows up with a bailee agreement that provides a way to actually “hold” a note on behalf of another without transfer of any right to enforce. It is done all the time in the mortgage industry. The mechanics are simple.
A mortgage loan seller sends the entire collateral loan file, with the promissory note, mortgage and other other documents to prospective buyer. However, because the note is endorsed in blank, and possession is what gives the right to payment and right to enforce, the seller sends the package under an bailment agreement known as a bailee letter. This agreement allows the recipient to examine the loan documents in its capacity as bailee for the real owner. When payment for the loan is satisfied the bailee agreement automatically terminates.
What is curious is that no one seems to be arguing that these financial institutions are using these bailee instruments to push forward foreclosures or claims in bankruptcy court to feign ownership. Judges figure that if the attorney representing the bank has possession of the note, then, they must be the owner. What if possession was temporary, by bailee letter and simply a ruse to mask the identity of the real party in interest? The effect in court would be the same – if no one raises the issue.
The only way to get to bottom of this is to seek production of bailee instruments immediately. This is also true in contexts of examining the transfers of these loan documents from the original mortgagees through to the warehouse lenders, securitizing entities, document custodians, trustees and their respective attorneys.
The bankruptcy judge in this article buys the premise laid out by the bank largely because there is no counterbalancing argument to possession. Finding one or more bailee agreements, in tandem with notes endorsed in blank, might just shoot a very big hole in the possession-of-note argument.
Bottom line: someone has to look for the conveyancing instruments AND the temporary custody documents, such as the bailee agreements. Until these are secured and examined, everyone will be buying the illusion.
Yeah, HUGELY bad. Unless you see some kind od silver lining.
Seems to me like one more step down the road to a place where mortgages (or recording assignments) don’t matter at all.
Not all is bad in this.
It does appear that the court has some serious reservations about blank allonges proffered in this case. It appears that if Deutsche cannot, or will not, comply with discovery they will have some serious problems.
“Deutsche Bank, however, still has not proven to either the trustee or the Court that it holds a validly endorsed promissory note evidencing its purchase of the debt on the disputed property. Therefore, Deutsche Bank cannot rely on the General Rule to avoid responding to the trustee’s discovery requests pertaining to the authenticity of the note. The trustee has raised in her complaint doubts concerning the authenticity and effectiveness of the endorsements on the allonge to the note. The copies of the note and mortgage attached as an exhibit to its response therefore are insufficient to establish Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the note.
Because the trustee has raised issues concerning the authenticity of and authority to endorse the note and allonge, the Court will overrule Deutsche Bank’s objection and compel its response to interrogatory number 5, seeking the names and addresses of ” each person whose signature appears on any endorsements on the Note or any allonge.”
HOORAY!!
Its about time someone started calling their bluff on these damn phony allonges!!
My property was in Va. Tampa Ch 13 Middle District had to review Virginia Code FIRST before issuing their order against Bank of America. Virginia Code mandates that no Allonges to Notes may be issued “in blank”. Originals are mandatory, because with a pc “anybody” can create an “original”…without evidence of chain of title who determines WHAT an Original truly is?
Seems to me, what everybody is missing is the real fraud – usury. A Note is created AFTER a person has obtained the DEED (title to the property) and that NOTE is merely a Promise to Pay – not a Bi-Lateral Contract under the UCC. Either one has to argue Common Law/UCC or Roman Civil Law/Codes. Either way – any “money loaned” based on a Persons Deed, as opposed to the Lender’s own Depositer’s funds, is “new money” created out of thin air (aka Counterfeiting/Fraud/Unconstitutional)
basically, what the court said, is what I said. If I find a $20 Federal Reserve Note on the ground, I am the Holder of the Note. It’s irrelevant how many other human or machine hands have had previous possession of that Note. What matters is the argument between “what is a Note”? A check or a draft?
See UCC3-104; A note is a negotiable instrument if it is payable “to order” or to “bearer”. This is equivalent to a check. Talked with the title company and she confirmed that we are doing an exchange. The note is given to the bank at the closing in exchange for a check for the “new money” The banks must give the proper IRS 1099A or B or use the settlement statement as a substitute. It must accompany a check per IRS as it discloses new money being issued. Ask for the IRS fiduciary tax return to see how they ledgered the account. The banks got paid as soon as they received our notes. The “new money” note is deposited into the bank and held as collateral or the deposit is transferred. If they have sold it on wall street in the form of a certificate, it has been converted. The note would have to be destroyed as it was sold for the certificate, just like we sold the note for the banks check. Now they are subject to fraud by conversion if they are trying to collect on a note while a certificate (from the trust) exists in it’s place. That would be having 2 instruments of value, they can’t both exist at the same time. That is why they can’t produce the note. The mortgage secures the note. Without the original note, the mortgage doesn’t secure anything from the original transaction, because the note is the money. But the gorilla in the room is, Where did the bank get the money to lend us? They do not have the authority to “print” money. Their bank charter prevents them from lending their depositors money as that is a liability of theirs. The banks have been playing this shell game for a long time and we are just finding out. When the bank deposits the promisory note it is put on their books as an asset (loan), but it must first go on as a liability (deposit). They balance each other. But when they go to court, they are only using the mortgage to try and take the property. The mortgage is only the lien, it is not the promise to pay. They are attempting to get the windfalls they are used to in the form of charging us 3 X the value of our homes in interest payments for 30 years. They sold the future interest payments (3x value of note and used it to fund the loan in some cases).The truth of it is we paid for our own “loans” as they only lent us their services, as it is impossible for them to lend us their “money” as they don’t have it unless they borrow from someone else. So who is that someone else? The courts know the fraud , and the bankruptcy of the United States has to be exposed to bring it all out in the open. HJR 192, June 5, 1933, Public Law 73-10. They are violating public policy in regards to the bankruptcy of the US, and all debts should be discharged dollar for dollar. We are not lent money, so we should not have to pay back money. We are accessing OUR credit. Credit is payment deferred. We can pay off the notes with another promissory note issued to ourselves and the bank, no interest and tendered to the bank. Or do a Bill of exchange, bankers acceptance. Forget the court fiasco.
This seems hopeful to me. If they can actually produce the original, blue ink note it will reveal who has actually owned the note and when these events took place.
Because, when they produce the real, true note an expert (which I think everyone should hire) will be able to look at every part of the document and will reveal, as an expert: where the paper was manufactured, when and where the ink came from, and if the signatures are genuine, plus a lot of other fun facts.
I am very, very interested in the statements of CaseClarity. I haven’t heard much about their services lately…and how their services are being received in the law field.
I don’t know law and I am very concerned about how a case can be limited, and one’s ability to bring up issues is limited, due to the lack of asking for facts/data/papers/etc. Is there a good source for learning about the phases of a foreclosure case? Does CaseClarity have something for the general public?
Great! Thanks again, Matt!!
publish i find it hard to come acrossgreatadvice out there when it comes to this subject materialappreciate for the content
thread i find it hard to track downdecentfacts out there when it comes to this subject materialappreciate for the write-up
Seems to me,Balderrama is playing the system and trying to get away with trickery,these thoughtless acts have helped to put the economy where it is at(everyone looking out for themselve)and upon further research on this,this woman is a Banker playing the system-watch out